“Gays and lesbians do not speak with one voice, except on one matter – their right to live their lives free from discrimination and fear” (xiii Gallagher). All American citizens are entitled to certain rights; according to the Constitution, the most fundamental of these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which can never be taken away from any U.S. citizen, unless they commit a felony. The Bill of Rights enumerates many other rights, such as free speech and freedom of religion, that U.S. citizens are not to be denied. When citizens are not allowed to exercise these rights, they become second-class citizens. Currently, homosexuals have this status and instead of trying to help raise gays and lesbians from this lowly place, many politicians are trying to push them down further with legislation that will block them from ever having equal rights. What homosexuals are seeking is to be equal citizens with equal rights under the law. They do not want to gain special privileges; they want to be true American citizens, not only in word, but also in action. They want to be free to live their lives and be open about their sexuality without the fear of lawful discrimination. Though they fought for a small number of different rights, the struggle homosexuals face at present is not very different from the struggle African Americans and women have faced in the past. It is a struggle for civil rights and for equality in a nation where these are supposedly guaranteed.
The arguments against giving certain rights to homosexuals are almost wholly religious, however,
What does seem clear is that those who regularly cite the Bible to condemn an activity like homosexual sex do so by reading it selectively. Do clergy who cite what they take to be condemnations of homosexuality in Leviticus maintain in their lives all the hygienic, dietary, and marital laws of Leviticus? If they cite the story of Lot at Sodom to condemn homosexuality, do they also cite the story of Lot in the cave to condone incestuous rape? (9 Mohr).
Though the story of Lot in the cave is not quite as brutal as he makes it out to be, Richard D. Mohr brings up a cogent point in his book, A More Perfect Union. Indirectly, Mohr asks how non-Christians in American society could be expected to follow the Bible’s “rules” (for lack of a better term) when many Christians and even Christian leaders do not. The more basic question would be why non-Christians should have to follow the Bible at all. This is where the religious right’s arguments fall. Though Bible-based, or Christian religions may be the most popular religions in America, it cannot be said that every American is Christian. Therefore, it is safe to assume that not every American wants to live a Christian lifestyle. Many American citizens choose other religions and live by the rules of their choice. These people do not expect Christians to follow their rules; Christians should give these people the same respect and not try to make them discriminate against homosexuals. Not every religion or religious group in the United States wishes to perpetuate mistreatment of gays and lesbians and their voices need to be heard. Similarly, not all conservatives want to ban gay marriage or pass related legislation. The religious or conservative right would be more correctly called the Christian right.
The politicians who try to keep homosexuals from their supposedly inalienable rights, mainly the Christian right, use either faulty “scientific” arguments or religious arguments to justify their actions. However, the use of such arguments is, in the first case, obviously wrong because fact is needed, not fiction, and in the second case, wrong again because the United States is an expressly secular country, as stated in the Constitution. The United States is based on Natural Law, which is neither in conflict with religion, nor is it indicative of it. To reinforce this, the First Amendment gives Americans the freedom of religion, which allows them to choose whatever religion suits them or to choose not to have a religion at all. Because there is no state religion and there can never be anything like it, making laws based on religious values is not truly constitutional. Such laws attempt to force the population to follow a certain religion or take up certain beliefs that they might disagree with, which makes for a great amount of discord among the people and an increased amount of criminal activity. Prohibition, in which the government tried to legislate morals to its people, is a definitive example of how government-legislated morals fail. With its passage, the country saw an increase in unlawful activity, which in itself is a decrease of morality. Since Prohibition was repealed in 1933, the federal government has backed off from trying to pass moral legislation; however, many states have raised taxes on tobacco, placed restriction on when and where alcohol can be sold, and have passed laws affecting the rights of homosexuals. There is currently a push for the federal government to ban gay marriage altogether, which, if enacted, would be a violation of the Constitution, the precedent of separation of church and state, and the freedom of religion. It would tell the world that America is not truly the land of liberty and equality that it is thought to be. As American citizens, gay men and lesbians must have equal rights. Homosexuals need to be included in the language of antidiscrimination laws, be able to serve freely in the United States Military, and have the right to marry. Without these rights, homosexuals can never be above a second-class citizen status.
The language of antidiscrimination laws needs to include gay men, lesbians, and bisexual Americans as it includes women, African Americans, and other minorities. Since the 1960s, six laws have been passed that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex (560 Wilson). These laws ban discrimination in the areas of public accommodations, federal funds, sale or rental of housing, and employment. Robin Miller explains why such legislation has been passed: “Employment, housing, and public accommodations are inherently public by their nature and must be open the members of the public. Individuals are not to bring their biases into those areas. They are entitled to their private biases, but they cannot act on that” (101 Miller qtd. in Gallagher). Under these laws, it is illegal, for example, for a homeowner to refuse to sell their home to someone because of that person’s race. It is also illegal to fire a woman simply because she is a woman, or to pay her less money than men who hold the same position as her. Miller was actually arguing specifically for gays, yet the same argument works for people of different races and sexes. But because these laws do not include homosexuals, discrimination against them is technically legal, however devastating the implications. One of the largest contributors to the perpetuation of employment discrimination among the gay population is the federal government itself: “The federal government has denied gay men and lesbians employment in the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency and continues to defend such discrimination in the courts. The government refuses to give security clearances to gays and so forces the country’s considerable private sector military and aerospace contractors to fire employees known to be gay and avoid hiring those perceived to be gay” (6 Mohr).
Since these laws do not include gay men and lesbians, they have been the victims of all these discriminations and many more. Perhaps most often, they are discriminated against in an activity known as gay or queer bashing. This occurs when any person, though often young, straight, white males, verbally abuse and possibly physically assault people who they believe are gay for whatever reason. The result of queer bashing is often a hate-crime. Since gays are not protected under antidiscrimination laws, even reporting hate-crimes committed against them can be dangerous, as it means that they must come out in a very public manner about their homosexuality, which opens them to additional discrimination, such as the possibility of losing their job or family. Furthermore, when these crimes are reported, the sentence for the few convicted perpetrators is impotent. Judges often justify inadequate sentences by saying that the perpetrator was acting in self-defense or simply had good intentions, however, once example will suffice to show just how wrong this is: “In 1989, a judge in Dallas handed a sentence he acknowledged as light to the eighteen-year-old murderer of two gay men because the murderer had killed them in a gay cruising zone, where the judge said they might have been molesting children. The judge thereby justified a form of vigilantism that bears striking resemblance to the lynching of black men on the grounds that they might molest white women” (5 Mohr). The judge in the case had no grounds to assume that the two gay men were criminals. These men were murdered because of gays’ false stereotype as child-molesters, which has always haunted gay men. Such unjust proceedings demonstrate that, “the life and liberty of gays, like those of blacks, simply count for less than the life and liberty of members of the dominant culture” (6 Mohr). If the to murdered men had not been gay, there would have been no “justification” of the young man’s actions. It is inequities such as this that homosexuals and their allies seek to eliminate from society.
If gay, lesbian, and bisexual citizens were included in these laws, they would be protected from such injustices. Nonetheless, in 41 states where they are not included in antidiscrimination laws, they must deal with little or no job security and the question of whether they will be able to live where they would like, an inhibition to their pursuit of happiness. They also deal with the constant possibility of verbal and physical abuse that they can do almost nothing about, which can be a threat to their inalienable right to life. This keeps homosexuals at a second-class citizen status and causes some of them to suffer mental distress. Homosexuals do not want to be privileged and they do not think that quotes should be instituted. In fact, “No reputable supporter of nondiscrimination measures has ever suggested that companies be made to go out of their way to hire gays and lesbians” (113 Gallagher). With the inclusion of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals in antidiscriminatory laws, companies would retain the right to hire the most qualified applicant for a job. However, if the best person for the job were a homosexual, there would be no reason not to hire them.
Another American franchise denied to gay men and lesbians is the ability to serve in the military openly. While the military has the right to deny a person if they are unfit, their declaring of homosexuals as unfit does not follow their other standards. The military says, basically, that homosexuals are unfit to serve because they will detract from the morale and have other negative affects on troops during missions. In 1976, the chief of naval personnel asked, “Does the Navy have any empirical proof that homosexuality among its members has an adverse effect upon the completion of the mission? The answer was no” (48 Galas). The Navy had proved, almost twenty years prior, that homosexuality did not affect a person’s ability to serve effectively. They did so in the 1957-Crittenden Report, which is an in-depth study of gays’ affects on their units. Five naval officers prepared the 639-page report after reviewing expert testimonies from personnel experts and psychiatrists from every branch of the service. This panel, led by Capt. S.H. Crittenden Jr., for whom the report was named, concluded that there was no reason to ban anyone from the military solely because they were thought to be gay. Though the report was filed away for almost twenty years because the military did not want to deal with negative publicity, its facts and evidence have been used since 1976 to defend discharged homosexuals in court.
Minorities, such as women and blacks, were once thought to have negative affects on troops if they were to serve in the military, but they have since proven themselves perfectly able to do the same tasks as any white male. If given the chance, gay men and women prove that they are just as reliable. Two specific people exemplify this: Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich and Col. Margarethe Cammermeyer. In his “eleven years of outstanding service”, Matlovich earned “the Bronze star, a Purple Heart, two air force commendation medals, an air force Meritorious Service medal, [and had served] three tours in Vietnam” (51 Galas). Nevertheless, when he decided to become the military’s first gay test case by admitting to his air force commanders that he was gay, he was immediately discharged. As a race-relations instructor, Matlovich had helped examine prejudice against black soldiers and he knew the military’s previous racist policies. The military had once justified its discrimination against blacks by arguing that “no white soldier would respect or take orders from a black officer. No white soldier, it was claimed, would trust a black soldier. No white soldier, would want to serve in the same foxhole with him or live in the same barracks” (52 Galas). Matlovich knew that the military was using the same arguments against gays and thought that if the military could be wrong about blacks, it could be wrong about homosexuals. Nevertheless, the military and the Supreme Court decided he was wrong. Matlovich was never reinstated, though his case did force the Supreme Court and the country to review its stance on homosexuals in the military. The case of Col. Margarethe Cammermeyer went similarly to Matlovich’s. Though Cammermeyer had served in Vietnam during the Tet offensive, earned a Bronze Star (which was very rare among women at the time), a Meritorious Service Medal, two army achievement medals, and the Administrator’s Award for Excellence in Nursing in 1985 (for which she was selected out of 34,500 nurses), she was honorably discharged when she admitted that she was a lesbian during an interview for a top secret security clearance. U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly ordered her reinstated and said that, “The public interest is likely to be promoted by permitting such an extraordinarily talented… officer to serve” (57 Galas). Zilly was one of several judges who ruled against the military in the early 1990s, a time when a change in policies was becoming inevitable.
Often, the first attempt at fixing a long-standing problem is ineffective; the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy follows this pattern. While the policy addresses the problem, it only makes a half-hearted attempt at actually correcting the problem. It infringes on the right of free speech given to all American citizens by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Under this arrangement, homosexuals must live completely “in the closet”. In other words, a homosexual soldier needs to have only a private conversation with a family member, friend, or even a guidance counselor to violate the policy. More overt acts, such as hugging, kissing, or dancing with a member of the same sex, even if the soldier is off-duty, are also violations (56 Galas). Additionally, the policy still does not allow gays to serve freely and legally in the armed services. It also undermines the military’s idea that soldier’s need to be able to trust each other. When gays are forced to keep their sexuality a secret from those they serve with, they are essentially forced to lie to fellow soldiers. Furthermore, it may cause an air of paranoia in troops because they cannot be sure of anyone’s sexual orientation. As it places an unequal code of silence on gay and lesbian soldiers and inhibits honesty among soldiers, the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy only inadequately attempts to solve this issue.
Though the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has fundamental problems, it is a small step in a positive direction. It hints at a time when gay men and lesbians can freely serve their country and the rest of the population will be accepting of it. In 1994, 53 percent of Americans were in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve in the military (55 Galas). At age eighteen, all men are required to register for the draft. This includes gay men, but if they were called upon to serve and their homosexuality was discovered, they would be discharged. This process is decidedly illogical and only becomes more so when homosexuals who wish to serve their country are turned away. What the issue boils down to is a question of why, when the country needs loyal citizens to serve it, should any fit person be turned away simply because of a characteristic like the color of their skin, their sex, or their sexual orientation. A scientifically supported answer has yet to be found.
In addition to these rights and liberties, homosexuals need to have the right to marry to keep them from being locked into second-class citizenship. There are two reasons gays and lesbians are calling for the right to marry. The first is that homosexuals want the family rights and benefits that heterosexuals get when they marry. Gay couples want to be able to form legally recognized family units so that they can make health care decisions on their partners behalf, have rights of inheritance, as well as the ability to file taxes jointly that heterosexual couples receive upon marriage. The second reason involves the more important aspect of marriage, which is love. If two people are in love and want to commit to their partner for life, there is no logical reason to keep them from it, whether they are African American, Hispanic, Christian, Buddhist, straight, or homosexual. One lesbian couple, who sparked debates on the topic with their application for a marriage license, could not comprehend, “[g]iven their intense devotion and careful courtship,” why they were denied equal access to the institution when “so many unprepared opposite-sex couples div[e] headlong into matrimony” (198 Gallagher). They knew that “[p]lanning for their future together meant struggling with many of the issues married couples take for granted: the right to visit a sick spouse or child in the hospital; joint tax returns; spousal health and social security benefits; and inheritance rights, to name just a few” (198 Gallagher). The two reasons that gay men and lesbians want to be able to marry are naturally intertwined; two people who care deeply for one another want to be able to take care of their loved one in case of emergency.
The Supreme Court said, in 1967, that marriage is “one of the basic civil right of man” and that it is “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness” (34 Galas). This evidences that lesbians and gay men seek only to be equal to heterosexuals in society and under the law in seeking the right to marry.
Gays and lesbians must be included in antidiscrimination laws, have the right to serve legally in the military, and the right to marry so that they can truly consider themselves citizens of the United States. Homosexuals are not asking for preferential treatment when they ask to be added to antidiscrimination laws; they simply want to be treated with respect and be equal under the law as the Constitution says they should be. Taking precautions against job and worse types of discrimination is not giving gays special rights. It allows them to be honest about who they truly are and be safe in society at the same time. If the ban on homosexuals serving in the military is fully lifted, then they can legally fight for the safety of the rest of society and the people’s rights, thereby returning the favor.
Americans enjoy general freedom in the U.S.: they can choose to act as they want, dress as they want, and live as they want as long as they do not intrude on other’s rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. So even if homosexuality were a chosen lifestyle, which is starting to be proven as a false idea, why should their rights be trampled upon? Christians are free to choose to be Christians, Jews are free to choose to be Jewish, Muslims are free to choose to be Islamic (though they must currently deal with some degree of discrimination as well because of the actions of a minority). In keeping with the pattern, why should gay men and lesbians not choose to be homosexual? And why should they be kept from certain jobs, rights, and social customs because they made that choice? It appears that some religious groups have failed to notice that their choice of religion is protected in antidiscrimination laws. Whether homosexuality is a choice status or not, by comparison, they should be included in these laws.
America is a country where some of the greatest principles are liberty and equality. Banning gay marriage violates both of these fundamental ideals by telling gay men and lesbians who they are allowed to marry and because such a law affects only a limited portion of the population. Banning gay marriage would also essentially place a ban on homosexuals’ ability to pursue happiness. The argument that the sanctity of marriage is at stake if gays are allowed to marry is weakening because the sacredness of the institution has been marred by the increase of divorce rates in recent years. Interracial marriage was once illegal because it was viewed as “gross”, “disgusting”, and detrimental to society, as gay marriage is sometimes viewed. But as the effects of racial discrimination began to subside, the true absurdity of this notion is realized. Gay marriage is not so different from interracial marriage and as homophobia and incorrect stereotypes of homosexuals die away, the government will realize that it cannot equitably ban gay marriage.  
There is little to distinguish gays from the rest of the population aside from their after hours attractions - they work, pay taxes, vote – they do everything else that American citizens do, yet they do so with lurking fears of discrimination and actions based thereon, which they can do nothing about because it is legal. Straight Americans must work to end the second-class treatment of gay citizens; there is more at stake than gay rights. The civil rights movement is not over yet and it will not be until all citizens of the United States have equal rights. America must end the second-class treatment of her citizens. As the founders of this country said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Jefferson). Raising homosexuals to a full-citizen status will bring America one step closer to truly achieving these parameters and being the country of liberty and equality that it was set out to be. "Put that on your fuckin toast, fuck fucker shit!" (The Vandals).